Transmitters on endangered species - How much of an electromagnetic radiation (and other) risk are they?
-
For example, From
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/new-zealands-quirky-kakapo-are-pulled-back-from-extinction.html
“Each kākāpō is named and tagged with a smart transmitter so scientists know their whereabouts and can collect data on their behaviour.”
Of course they help. But will they help more than interfere? Ie, what is the sum effect?
-
If it does cause a problem for them I'd suspect it's discomfort at the site of attachment before it's EMF. What the animal doesn't know probably won't hurt it. Unless it's an injectable, gastric or dermally absorbed poison of course. But this may be another kind of interdependence. The EMF may make the animal more attuned to the "subjective" sensation of discomfort. At a cellular level then all the way up.
Before a roadside materialist may interject with controlled and remote exposure studies in animals, consider they're probably confined in an unusually ugly and tight vessel for such experiments. And association studies in humans known to have resided near concentrated sources don't control for a million other factors. Including a far more complex degree of the interdependence described. As we're cursed with higher order cognition for whatever reason.
Source, trust me bro. I read things.
-
@ThinPicking Thanks. so any radiation effects are negligible? Wondering how it compares to a human being with a cell phone.
-
@16charactersitis said in Transmitters on endangered species - How much of an electromagnetic radiation (and other) risk are they?:
so any radiation effects are negligible?
I wouldn't put a collar on a cat personally, let alone one with a radio transmitter. But still, probably negligible.
Wondering how it compares to a human being with a cell phone.
I think it probably depends on interference with our own field. Which would depend on a lot.
I take precautions but at the same time, I definitely don't worry about it.
-
I vaguely recall some older studies that indicated that the pets wearing such collars had a shorter lifespan. I assume that they no longer look at lifespan as an indicator of collar safety. Too many confounding factors?
Here is a recent study. It does not mention lifespan.
-
@ThinPicking Oh, OK
-
This post is deleted! -
@DavidPS skimmed it but seems they took safety parameters as a given and pretty much took it from there rather than investigating individual effects. But maybe I need to read it more carefully.
At least sounds like the animals in Vienna are subjected to the less invasive transmitters than their American counterparts. Thanks
